Solaris

Rating:
Summary: See George Think
Review: Truthfully, I wanted this film because I wanted to see George Clooney's bare bottom and anything else. But if you want this film just to see that great sight, you may be disappointed. Don't get me wrong. I loved this movie. But this is not the usual Clooney vehicle. No swaggering Dr. Doug Ross here. No echoes of Ocean's Eleven. Instead, we see a haggaard man, overcome with grief, struggling to find sense and answers in a place where confusion and fear reign. The starkness of the space station beautifully reflect the main character's mind set and the state of grief in general. This is perhaps the best acting Clooney has done!

Rating:
Summary: The Worst movie in the rental store right now
Review: This has to be the worst movie that is out right now for rental or purchase. I run a video rental store and I have heard nothing but bad news about this movie. Half the people couldn't get through it because they fell asleep, and another 25 percent stopped watching it before the movie ended. I disliked it to the most intentions. The music in the background has one tone playing from soft to loud for 2 hours straight, after hearing this I got a migraine and got dizzy, which I cured with some medicine. the plot goes nowhere and at the end of the film you say this "bluwah?" I recomend this movie to no one. Even if you read the book you should not see this movie because it will probably ruin the book. This movie should end George Clooney's career because it is such an embarassment to both him, his fans, and the entertainment world.

Rating:
Summary: What a masterful work!
Review: First the movie is a remake of a 1972 classic named the same. A remake with George Clooney was not a big Must See on my list, but I couldnt help it. This movie amazed me. Really amazed me. The use of music may hav made this a bit strange feeling movie as a soundtrack is used to create emotion, but it made for a masterfully climax and really added to the beauty of it. George Clooney was fantastic, making one of those rare against type characters which is either not allowed in Hollywood or considered pretentious. He was great-a great actor not just showman. The mood of the movie made the famous butt shot an addition to the movie not a special feature. A really worthy film and while it still has a hollywood vibe it actually makes people over 16 think.

Rating:
Summary: Solaris Lacks Luster
Review: "Solaris," by Stanislaw Lem, holds a prominant place in the science fiction book catalogue. It is a deeply moving story of one man's loss and his final confrontation with his inner demons. It is also a treatise on the nature of how subconscious forces shape and mold ego and how memory and love shape our reality. And, if that's not enough, it is also a story about the nature of God's relationship with man. Obviously, translating this book onto the screen is a monumental task, not only because of the comlex themes, but also because of the fundamental lack of physical adventure. All the action is psychological, if you will. Andrei Tarkovsky's 1972 version of this book was overall successful in relaying the comlexities of Lem's ideas, however, it is very slow-paced, long, and, consequently, requires effort on the part of the viewer to stay focused during the movie. In the recent version of "Solaris," Steven Soderberg, wants to avoid the length and intellectual challenge offered by Tarkovsky and ends up compromising the entire movie. He assumes that a shorter screenplay and directorial bravado will lure the audience and peak viewer interest in the story. Thus, he uses his signature editorial style of jump cuts, handheld shots, exquisite cinematography, and, cache actor, George clooney. He also pared the story down to focus and explore the love story in more detail, leaving the more introspective philosophical themes hidden (perhaps, buried). While the other themes of the book are there, you have to really tease them out. The spiritual issues, for example, are abruptly and rather simplistically introduced in the dinner party scene, only to be abandoned in the remaining exposition. Moreover, we are shown Mr. Clooney's derriere gratuitously on two occasions, as if to infuse the movie with a dose of sensationalism lest the audience fall asleep. While, the cinematography is very effective and the sound effects are invloving, the editing becomes tedious and distracts away from the story. No doubt, this is a challenging project to bring to the big screen, let alone to popular cinema; however, I found the use of such trite pandering patronizing and somewhat insulting. This story is only cheapened, its themes diluted, by the addition of unnecessary eye candy. Indeed, this latest version of "Solaris" is largely a failure because it is rendered uninteresting and irrelevant precisely by the very strategy used to keep people watching. All these maneuvers only serve to distract from the story, rather than to tell it.

As for the DVD, I found the interviews totally self-aggrandizing and shameless in their claims of originality. This movie clearly borrows imagery from great scifi movies, such as 2001 as well as 1972's Solaris. Nowhere in the interviews is proper credit given to these earlier movies. It seems from the interviews, that the producers and director of this movie want us to believe it represents a totally original form of scifi movie. I didn't buy it in the least.

I gave this movie one star for cinematography and sound.

Rating:
Summary: Nice concept...bad movie.
Review: I gave this movie a fair chance even after I was warned that it was a bomb. I suppose that this film was intended to be "artistic", but instead seemed silly and contrived. In a sense the concept of pet semetary (yes, cemetary spelled with an s..don't ask me..lol) is conveyed....the bringing back of loved ones lost, no matter the costs...but without gore, zombies or excitement whatso-ever. Maybe Solaris tries to be a love story...but fails to capture your heart like the likes of "somewhere in time". The longing is there...but the purpose and script are lacking.
The only point made clear by this film: Georges naked [bottom]. I almost got tired of seeing it....
Bottom (pun-pun) line: It will bore you to sleep. Skip it!

Rating:
Summary: Dreadfully underrated
Review: Despite it's criticisms, shortcomings, and comparisons to Andrei Tarkovsky version of the classic sci-fi novel; Steven Soderbergh's flawed, but nevertheless stylish, interpretation of Stanislaw Lem's novel is a feast for the eyes and the mind. George Clooney plays Chris Kelvin; a psychologist who is sent to a space station orbiting an alien planet to find out what has happened to the crew members of the station, which has since lost contact. When he arrives, he learns that a crew member has committed suicide, and the two surviving crew (Jeremy Davies and Viola Davis) are experiencing some rather strange phenomina. Soon enough, Kelvin begins to be visited by the image of his dead wife (Natascha McElhone), and we learn that this mysterious planet can reach into your most painful memories and make them real. Solaris' problems lie within Soderbergh's screenplay; his subtlety is good to a point, the film implies more than it should explain, and the ending is too happy of an ending and is superbly disappointing. All that aside however, Solaris is criminally underrated, and despite it's many flaws, it is still an incredible piece of film that outshines many of the over the top glossy Hollywood product that is way too abundant today. Clooney is surprisingly superb, and McElhone gives the finest performance of her career in a role that many actresses would have a difficult time doing. Yes it's purposely slow moving. Yes, it can be confusing. Yes, maybe it would have been better off in James Cameron's hands. But all things considered, Solaris turned out better than I could have hoped.

Rating:
Summary: Prolific, mature storytelling
Review: Soderbergh reaches to the very root of science fiction to tell a story that's essentially about what drives us all: desire.

Spolier alert: The subtext explores the human psyche as the protagonist emotionally evolves before our very eyes. Chris Kelvin, the title character who is brilliantly portrayed by George Clooney, has to reach beyond his training as a psychologist to understand a situation where the memory of his late wife Rheya (Natasha McElhone) comes back to life on Solaris.

A situation is thus created where Kelvin opts to disregard his training and instead embraces this alternate reality he finds himself within. It's Kelvin's struggle to believe the unbelievable that drives his character throughout the movie.

The twist is that Rheya gains an awareness that she's actually *not* alive, and in fact is existing only as a kind of simulacrum that is generated by Solaris. Her character eventually understands that living someone else's memory is no life at all, and her struggle is to accept the inevitable fact that she is not Rheya but just a living memory of Rheya as held by Kelvin.

This is an intelligent, precise, and masterfully edited film. My only disappointment is in the performance by Jeremy Davies who chooses to act with his hands rather than with his face. His character is actually quite critical to the plot and he delivers his dialogue quite convincingly, but his choices as an actor were a bit disappointing. Better to cast Henry Thomas from Gangs of New York in my opinion.

In any case the movie is very intellectual, subtly challenging, and I found it immensely satisfying to watch.

Rating:
Summary: Why bother with a remake
Review: Why would anyone want to remake Tarkovsky's masterpiece?

Maybe it was Cameron's idea - his remake of 'A Night to Remember' was fairly well received, despite the extraneous love story. Although I suspect it was saved by its special effects.

The original Solaris was glacially paced, mysterious and atmospheric.
The remake is slow, irritating and derivative.

Buy the original, rent this one and make your own comparison.

Rating:
Summary: Not Steven Soderborgh's best
Review: Though the story concept is very creative, the writers could have explored the scenes further. It's missing many of the characters' emotions. The emotions that are expressed by the actors do wonderful, especially George Clooney and Natascha McElhone. The bearded man's life was irrevilent to the movie, but he's interesting sometimes. The visual effects of the ship and Solaris are great. It wasn't overly done like most other special effects-based movies.

The combination of science fiction and drama is very creative. Though production and direction needs more effort to perfect this cross-genre, it opened doors for other movie producers and writers. Though Steven Soderborgh's best remains "Traffic", he directs "Solaris" wonderfully.

Rating:
Summary: Can't sleep? Try new and improved 'Solaris 2002'...
Review: A film is not boring because of who stars in it who writes it or who directs it. It's not boring because it belongs to a specific genre, is in black and white, old, new, subtitled, or over 3 hours in duration. It's not boring because it's thought provoking or mindless, looks fantastic or has a very low budget. No. For a film to attain 'boring' status it has to somehow manage to possess a very specific and unique combination of properties. To be honest I have so rarely watched a film that I could call boring and entirely without merit that I couldn't even tell you exactly what those properties are. All I can tell you is that when such a film is playing before you, you will gradually become aware of a question emanating up from the deepest depths of your brain. Quietly at first, then louder, and with increasing regularity until you have hit the 40 minute mark and it's screaming at you for action. That question is:

Should I turn the tv off now and rescue the next hour of my life, or will I regret not knowing what happened at the end of the film?

Sometimes you might reach the 40 minute point, ask this question of yourself, and you may opt to stick it out. If that happens then the film has merit - because although it may have it's flaws, it has at least hooked you just enough to not desert it. On the other hand at this particular stage a film might just be so dull, so badly scripted, badly paced, badly exectuted and altogether thoroughly disengaging - that the only course of action is to reach for that remote control before you start chewing the furniture. Ladies and Gentlemen - I give you such a film. Solaris 2002 with George Clooney. An hour and a half of eye-watering tedium. So sluggish and boring that I have even written to the Oxford Engish Dictionary to emplore them to just replace the word 'tedious' with a photo of the DVD cover. so boring that even the current word 'boring' in the english dictionary can't adequatly descrive the effect this film had on me. I really don't care whether Solaris is a planet, a sentient being, a god, or an entirely new plane of existence. I don't even care about the questions the film raises about space, technology, love, or faith. It's bored me so much that I'm too busy questioning my own faith to worry about that of those on the film. After all, how can there really be a God when honest and good people are made to suffer and endure films such as this?

Ok, so it looks nice. There's some spacey bits, a big swirly thing, and some metal corridors and stuff that look all shiny. I like the rain falling on the window too - that happens a couple of times. There's some nice incidental music in there also. So if that sounds like a magical hour and a half for you, you're onto a winner here - more so if you'd like a look at George Clooney's bottom. I've never seen the original (film that is, not bottom..), and unfortunately this version has ensured that I will never see it either which is a shame.